C# and Java Weekday Languages, Python and Ruby For Weekends?

Dan Lorenc writes "Using the StackOverflow.com data dump, I measured the activity of various programming languages throughout the week. The results: Ruby and Python saw a rise in questions asked on the weekend while C# and Java saw a dropoff in activity on the weekend. This means that more programmers are using Python and Ruby on the weekend for their personal projects, showing that these languages are more fun to use. Show this experiment to your boss the next time you are selecting a programming language for a project at work."

Comments

I think you're doing it wrong..

[Anrego]

Show this experiment to your boss the next time you are selecting a programming language for a project at work.

I totally agree that Java isn't fun. It's very restrictive and almost forces even the simplest task to be forced into a complex object oriented structure. It is definently not a language to just play around and hack stuff together.

And this isn't ground breaking news either.. most people who use java at work are well aware that it isn't much fun to code.

The reason it's chosen is that all that extra code and restrictiveness makes for some very maintainable code. Everyone (or almost everyone) adheres to a strict coding convention and general approach that makes code across projects very consistant. The fact that there is a massive standard library, in addition to a set of mature defacto 3'rd party tools also contribute to this.

And I know there are gonna be all kinds of comments and success stories about how ruby and python are _more_ maintainable and faster and more efficiant and can walk on water and will give you a BJ if you import the right library.. but imo nothing comes close to Java in the maintainability department.

The short story is a coder playing around in his spare time has a different set of priorities than a developer at work. When you're playing.. use what's fun.. when your working.. use what works.

Re:I think you're doing it wrong..

[Z00L00K]

Java may not be fun or sexy, but on the other hand it is intended to be strict to make it easy to maintain in the long run.

The problem is that Python & co are more like Basic than anything else (it's a lot like dressed-up classic Basic) and that the strictness is missing which in turn means that what one person has written is hard to maintain by another person. This is especially hard if dynamic typing is used.

The point behind statically and strongly typed languages is that you will catch a large number of bugs during compilation, but if the type is assigned during runtime you get a lot of hidden bombs that are just waiting to go off.

That may be fine for a hobby project with only a few programmers, but if you insert a lot of programmers into a solution then you need all the support you can find from the language itself.

There are of course problems with Java too, but they are hardly solved with a script language. No language is perfect, but view it from the perspective of large systems. C/C++ aren't good either, but for small solutions C can be useful while C++ has the disadvantages of both C and object-orienting combined.

There is a reason why really old systems around have their code written even in Cobol, Fortran or Pascal. Languages that don't allow the user to write code that can contain too many unexpected bombs compared to C.

Re:I think you're doing it wrong..

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The problem is that Python & co are more like Basic than anything else (it's a lot like dressed-up classic Basic)

Yes, because classic Basic had functions with named arguments, lexical scoping, call stack... Would you mind to share your insight into this with us? The line of reasoning that equates the so-called "classic Basic" with Python?

and that the strictness is missing which in turn means that what one person has written is hard to maintain by another person

There are various kind of strictness and I can't think of any that a) would ensure that one person understands another person's code and b) could not be broken in Java while being easily broken in Python, e.g.

The point behind statically and strongly typed languages is that you will catch a large number of bugs during compilation, but if the type is assigned during runtime you get a lot of hidden bombs that are just waiting to go off.

Java is hardly an example of a statically and strongly typed language. Most Java value types are actually object classes, and these are heap-allocated objects checked at runtime. Combine this with the fact that you can cast an expression to another type and you end up with runtime exceptions. Now if you were talking about ML or Haskell, that would be something different, but you haven't actually mentioned any good statically and strongly typed language in your post.

There are of course problems with Java too, but they are hardly solved with a script language.

Python, e.g, was not designed to be a scripting language. It can be used in that role with great success, but that does not make it one.

Re:I think you're doing it wrong..

[644bd346996]

... By not supporting complex types or lambda expressions Java becomes a more straightforward language, but the cost is that Java APIs are generally more complicated than equivalent APIs in other languages. Take a look at almost any library written in Ruby and contrast the API to an equivalent library in Java; 9 times out of 10, the Java API will a large number of methods and classes that the Ruby version can sidestep through the use of blocks and dynamic classes. ...

I think a good way of explaining this is to say that the Java way of doing things compartmentalizes the complexity of a system. This is great from a damage control perspective, but makes it very difficult for adding new features, because for that you need to be able to see the big picture.

Re:I think you're doing it wrong..

[gomoX]

Well, it depends on what definition you take. The Dragon book, which is pretty much the standard CS book on compilers, defines strongly typed as "a language where type errors cannot occur at runtime". With this definition, Python is certainly not strongly typed.

Re:I think you're doing it wrong..

[loonycyborg]

C++ has the disadvantages of both C and object-orienting combined.

Wrong. C++ has advantages of both C and object-orienting combined. And some really nice libraries such as boost. That comes at a cost of pretty steep learning curve which IMO is worth it.

Re:I think you're doing it wrong..

[StormReaver]

I totally agree that Java isn't fun.

I have to disagree with everything you said. If you're creating complex object structures for even simple tasks, then you're using Java very poorly, and doing object oriented programming very badly. Java, when used competently, is an efficient, flexible language. It is extremely well suited for hacking things together and playing around, as well as serious development. Getting a simple GUI program up and running is a matter of about 10 lines of sparse code. Getting a simple console program running is about half that. As programs get large, Java's facilities for organization and object decoupling make maintenance much easier than it would be without those facilities.

I've used more programming languages than I can remember in the last 25 years of software development (I don't think I have enough fingers and toes to count them), and Java is one of my all time favorites (especially since version 6). It's simple, efficient, effective, powerful, maintainable, and lets me get a lot done quickly. As far as programming goes, those are key components of fun. Throw in Netbeans, and it's the closest thing to programming bliss I've ever seen.

As far as maintainability goes, that has more to do with the quality of the object structures than anything inherent in the language itself. Well designed C++ object structures are just as maintainable as well designed Java structures, just as poor object structures are difficult to maintain in any language.

Re:I think you're doing it wrong..

[digitalunity]

C++ is like a double edged sword. In the hands of an idiot, it will let you create catastrophic type safety failure.

Then again, in the hands of a true coding genius, multiple inheritance, polymorphism and dynamic casting can allow some truly ingenious coding.

Re:I think you're doing it wrong..

[arevos]

In fact, power of Java tools is so great, it can argued that Java+IDE is in fact a higher-level language.

Java tools are useful in the same way as a wooden stump is useful. It's better than nothing, but I'd rather keep my actual leg.

In the same way, I'd prefer a language with lambdas, macros, dynamic loading, immutable fast data structures and homoiconicity. Java's IDEs go a long way to making Java bearable, but it can't compare with better designed languages.

Re:I think you're doing it wrong..

[swilver]

1) Rename class member in Python
2) Watch chaos ensue

Re:I think you're doing it wrong..

[bill_kress]

Complexity is not really all that related to size. It's more about readability and predictability--hidden surprises, how long it takes you to figure out what a single line is doing, and how long it takes you to find out what a single method is doing.

So if you use those parameters, Java may actually come out as more readable since javadocs are so well used, the tools tend to bring up docs on over, there are no surprises in the syntax, etc.

I actually enjoy working in it as well. I'm pretty good at factoring and I generally find that people who can code java almost as briefly as ruby or python are often just not trying hard enough.

the difference I found is that in Java I tend to extract lots of stuff as data--things you wouldn't normally consider extracted (like menu structures and other places where most people just code line after line of junk); but in Ruby, people think it's "easier" because ruby makes it easier to embed your data in your code.

Ruby gets fairly close to making it actual data, but since it's still ruby code, you have to.deal_with random_punctuation in what.pretends to_be straight.forward English. At least the java version of the same thing follows a simple, minimal grammar. (Minimal grammar is critical, don't have two ways to do the same thing is what the python people say!)

But ruby and python are certainly more fun!

Re:I think you're doing it wrong..

[Z00L00K]

And when a type check occurs at runtime it's a bomb in the code waiting to go off at the most inconvenient moment ever.

The cost of finding bugs in a solution is raising exponentially with each stage in the application process of compile-link-execution.

You may claim that those problems should be rectified when running tests, but that also means that you have to verify that you have covered every execution path leading to every case where there may be an error.

Re:I think you're doing it wrong..

[mustafap]

>You are a moron. You *was* taught Java

And you would have been better off keeping your mouth shut, as you can't even write in English.

WWTBD?

[migla]

"Show this experiment to your boss the next time you are selecting a programming language for a project at work."J

What would the boss do? Maybe he'd come to the conclusion that Java and C# are for professionals while Python and Ruby are for hobbyists?

Re:WWTBD?

[tyler_larson]

What would the boss do? Maybe he'd come to the conclusion that Java and C# are for professionals while Python and Ruby are for hobbyists?

It is.

Dynamic languages are fast and fun, but writing maintainable code in Ruby or Python takes an absurd amount of time and discipline. Take the following real-world, not-at-all-uncommon example. Imagine you have the function "get_results", and you want to quickly determine what all the parameters do. So you have a look at the code:

def get_results(**args):
color = args.pop('color','red')
return generator(color=color).encode(_fetch(**args))

Totally, completely, useless. So you end up following a series of rabbit holes trying to track down the actual usage of these parameters -- and even when you think you've got it all figured out, you still can't be certain because the complex interaction of possibilities in a dynamic language means that you never know what details will end up later being significant.

In order for the thing to be maintainable, the comments would have to outweigh the code by a factor of about 3 to 1, and the documentation needs to be rigorously maintained so that it stays in sync with the code. If you're the original author, then no problem! You wrote the function, so you know what it does. But in a corporate setting with a team of 5 programmers and average turnover, this is a nightmare.

Languages like Java and C# are significantly more verbose and explicit than languages like Python. You're forced to spell everything out in excruciating detail or the thing just won't run. It's like being FORCED to write documentation as part of your program: functions and parameters need to be explicitly declared, class structures can't change shape during execution -- all the important decisions about the shape and usage of your code needs to be decided and written down, and can't be changed without updating all your definitions.

Python and Ruby are "fun" because they don't make you work. There's a cost to skipping all that work, though.

Not necessarly "more fun to use'

[Shados]

While its probably one of the factors... Java and C# are very heavily used in business environments. So if you're trying to expand your horizon by learning something new, you're not going to be looking at stuff you do day to day.

So I'd assume anything people would do during business hours would take a drop on weekends, in favor of things they -don't- do at work, regardless of what it is... It just makes sense.

Really? You think that's what it means?

[bonch]

This means that more programmers are using Python and Ruby on the weekend for their personal projects, showing that these languages are more fun to use.

What's to stop me from coming to a different conclusion, such as that Python and Ruby are toy languages not meant for serious projects? It would be just as presumptuous, wouldn't it?

Ghaaaaaa????

[TiggertheMad]

...showing that these languages are more fun to use.

...And in other news, older people seem to die more often than younger people, showing that being dead is much more fun as you get older.

"Fun" is not a criteria in my book

[AdamInParadise]

When I start a new professional project, I pick the most productive language for the job, according to the circumstances. Usually it's Java because this is the language that everyone in my industry is going to know. In another industry, I guess that I would have to use C, C# or Fortran.

Now, Java is a reasonably efficient language and I like programming in it. Some of my colleagues cringe and prefer to use obscure languages instead, such as OCaml or (Deity forbid), a language they defined themselves. And the moment they quit you are stuck with thousands and thousands of line of code that no one else can understand.

The gist is simple: Python and Ruby are fine languages, but when you're programming for a living, "fun" is usually trumped by more important considerations, such as being able to find another programmer to maintain the code.

incorrect deduction

[prgrmr]

This means that more programmers are using Python and Ruby on the weekend for their personal projects, showing that these languages are more fun to use

Or it could be that Python and Ruby are inherently easier to learn or use; or that they are easier to learn or use by an individual as opposed to the groups usually found in a corporate environment; or that they don't require expensive proprietary compilers or IDE's to make use of; or that they can be used on systems that are slower or have less memory than those often found in corporate environments; or any of a dozen other reasons.

Irrespective of the actual reasons, automatically equating weekend work with fun is just poor science. And it may not be rocket science, but it is computer science and should be examined as such.

Sounds about right

[Lemming Mark]

My "real" work is in C, where it's very easy to get certain things done but very inconvenient to do most other things. My fun programming is in Python because it makes quickly knocking together something that works as straightforward as possible. The C stuff is fun too, actually - it's just not the kind of hacking I'd want to do in my leisure time. Spare time hacking is often done alone or collaborating with a small group of programmers; Python's structuring (or lack thereof, depending on your point of view) actually works quite well if there's just you working informally on the code. And the very rapid development and flexibility mean I can get a lot more functionality out for a given expenditure of leisure time.

Actually, though, my default in a professional environment would probably be Python if it was applicable and I was given the choice. I'd only use C if it's really necessary for the job.

Not exactly Sherlock Holmes

[93 Escort Wagon]

This means that more programmers are using Python and Ruby on the weekend for their personal projects, showing that these languages are more fun to use.

That's a breathtakingly poorly-drawn conclusion, although the thought processes involved behind some Slashdot submissions rarely surprises me anymore.

The more obvious conclusion is that using a scripting language is easier than using a compiled language.

A secondary conclusion I've drawn from this is more people should consider developing hobbies that differ from their day jobs. Me, I like gardening.

REFACTORING

[TwinkieStix]

Statically typed languages allow for some very aggressive refactoring tools. Modern software engineers that work all day in a programming environment can easily move code around as if it were paint on a canvas using good modern refactoring tools. Pushing methods in, out, and across interfaces, changing the type of a method return, or it's name, and altering the design of a complex inheritance hierarchy are all done with simple keyboard shortcuts in Eclipse when programming in Java. While I've not used it, I understand that C# developers have access to some similarly complex tools.

And, the compiler can act as a first line of defense, alerting the user of bugs before an executable is even created. All of these refactoring tools work to refactor the unit tests as well, so code written using TDD isn't harmed by all of these changes.

This kind of stuff I just haven't been able to replicate using Dynamic languages, which is why I choose them for my small personal project, and am glad I use a statically typed language that scales to hundreds of developers and millions of lines of code at work.

Re:What about Perl?

[TheRaven64]

Maybe Perl programmers don't post questions on a web site, they just write code and read the docs when they don't know something?

I use Python during the weekdays

[thaig]

...because the non-programming parts of the job take a lot of effort and I'm not going to waste time on Java's overdesigned class system.

Python is very easy to refactor too thanks to duck typing. You get to concentrate that much more on the problem and that much less on the mechanics of types. Java and C++ send you off on the path of creating some complex class hierarchy and trying to get it right first time. In Python you do what's good enough for your current understanding and keep refactoring as you understand better it's easy to develop as you learn. Your programs change more but end up being less warped and overcomplicated.

I also write a little C and some fairly complicated GNU Make macros to be fair.

I will not go back to Java or C++ because I think they are the worst of all worlds - compromises that give you part of what you want instead of opposites that you can combine.

Old rule: Right tool for the job!

[Hurricane78]

This article is just an aspect of using the right tool for the right job. And Python and Ruby happen to be a very nice languages for quickly hacking new ideas together. Later you can work out the details and all on Java (no C# love here, and not sorry for it! :), Haskell, or even C/C++, depending on what fits best.

Re:What about Perl?

[TheRaven64]

So, I guess the take-home lesson from this is that C#, Java, Python and Ruby attract the kind of person who doesn't look in the right place for a solution to a problem. In hindsight, I could probably have worked that out...

Willie Sutton Redux

[wdhowellsr]

I was orginally going to respond to Kodak man but am comfortable just providing this link of their amazing success. http://quote.morningstar.com/stock/s.aspx?t=EK&culture=en-US&region=USA&r=469272&byrefresh=yes

Whoa Nellie! I've always wanted to send this reply but never found a sufficiently relevant post of which to respond.

All corporate IT departments worldwide are basically Johns looking for the cheapest but most satisfying solution to their current needs.

So imagine you are a CTO driving down the street and you see on your right a woman who, while attractive, also seems to provide a significant amount of additional services. However when you roll down your window you find out that in exchange for her services you have to marry her and hire her twenty children from a previous marriage in addition to signing a pre-nuptial agreement that pretty much sucks for you. (IBM)

You continue down the road and see the most beautiful woman in the world and she is guaranteed to be free of any viruses and diseases. Unfortunately she tells you that once you use her services you will be physically incapable of even looking at another women and if you try they will sue both you and the other women in court. Plus she is even more expensive than IBM. (Apple)

After deciding to keep looking you see a girl who looks less than a biscuit over fifteen but claims to be twenty-five. She is very enthusiastic and actually offers to do anything you want absolutely free. When you ask for specifics she excuses herself and walks over to a group of people who are feverously checking their computers for the most recent, coolest and insane method of satisfying your needs. When she returns she absolutely insures that she can do everything that you want but makes you sign an agreement that you have to share everything that you do with her with everyone else on the planet and she cannot completely guarantee that you will be satisfied. Just before you leave the attractive woman from IBM shows up and offers to throw in the fifteen year old for free as long as you still marry her, hire her children and sign the pre-nuptial agreement. (OpenSource)

You continue down the road and see a woman so ugly that you can't tell whether she has makeup on or not. She can provide all of the services of all the other girls and cheaper than everyone but the fifteen year old. She cannot guarantee you won't get any viruses or other diseases but promises to provide as many vaccines and cures necessary to keep you from dying. She seems to have a lot of customers and very few of them have died of anything serious so you are very interested in using her services. (Microsoft)

Before you make a final decision you pull over and roll your windows down to get some air. Suddenly you see a women that looks like nothing you have ever seen but different. She is clearly beautiful but has a strange glow of experience. You actually get out of the car and walk up to her wondering how she would compare to all the other girls. She does not speak English very well but within a very short time you realize that she has as much if not more experience that everyone else. When you ask how much she charges she provides a printout of over a thousand different services at half of what any of the other women are charging, save of course for the fifteen year old, and provides SLAs that put all of the other girls to shame. (Offshore)

You have finally made up your mind. You are going with the offshore service and invite her to join you in you car. She apologizes and mentions that she is just the representative for the team and if you stop at the next light you can pick up the other ten girls.

Because I'm no Ron Jeremy I will leave the end of the story, but suffice to say they separated into five groups of two and he fell asleep before they had decided on a

Not all projects should be done in C# or Java

[sgtrock]

So, Python is just a toy language, eh? One unsuited to use for any heavy lifting or by large programming teams? Funny, someone should tell Google so they can replace all of their code. Same goes for Pixar, too, I suppose.

Look, you're making a classic mistake in assuming that your experience is the sum total of all programming tasks. The truth is that we have lots of programming languages because no single language or class of language can do all things equally well. There's a time and a place for a strongly typed, dynamic language. You simply haven't been exposed to the kinds of jobs where that's common, that's all.

Re:What about Perl?

[arth1]

While a perl user will get almost all answers answered by "man perl" (and the numerous other man pages which the main perl man page will tell you about) or "perldoc", and the few remaining ones by reading the camel.
I could also be mentality. If you have a personality type making it common to ask others for assistance, you might not be the type who would pick perl.

But really, William of Ockham tells me that those doing this "study" were monitoring the forums they themselves were familiar with.

Re:Willie Sutton on why he robs banks.

[shutdown -p now]

Wonderful. In other words, you will turn down any experienced Linux guy if he just happens to say that Windows doesn't really suck that much, and admits to having used it once in the last 3 years?

Sounds like your business is less about earning money, and more about proving some point.

Not that anyone with .NET or generally Windows experience would be bothered at all, though - there are more than enough well-paid jobs for them anyway. But so long as it helps you feel like the Guy Sticking It To The System, enjoy it, and have fun.

Re:Willie Sutton on why he robs banks.

[Sinbios]

Was this post meant to illustrate the problem with C#, or just how big of a cunt you are?